Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!hercules!sparkyfs!usasoc.soc.mil!aero!QUCDN.QueensU.CA!ROPERK From: ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Girls, girls, girls Message-ID: <90255.141840ROPERK@QUCDN.BITNET> Date: 12 Sep 90 18:18:40 GMT References: <1990Aug27.193416.19394@tc.fluke.COM> <24693@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <6290@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> <11927@chaph.usc.edu> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 37 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R The "belittling" thing about the word "girl" is that it implies a lack of maturity (in just about any sense of the word). I find it offensive for this reason, and for its association with the North American preoccupation with the barely-pubescent female physique (somehow this conflicts with the NA fascination with overly large breasts, unless one considers that they're both *extremes*). And yes, I find the improper application of the word "boy" equally offensive. I use it as such, eg. the "old boys' network", and thus I rarely use it at all. Elaborating on an earlier post: I don't find "lady" demeaning in an SCA context because it has been stripped of condescension. It doesn't bother me when used as in "Ladies and Gentlemen", since it is an attempt at a polite, not belittling, address. In most other contexts I find it insulting to my intellect. I don't mind being called Kim, though %> ------- Kim Roper Dept of Chem Eng, Queen's University Bitnet/Netnorth: roperk@qucdn.queensu.ca Most of the clowns just walked past as if nothing had happened. Occasionally one would trip on a piece of debris, and growl at the naked faces. They stared back apologetically, much like a puppy named "Piddles" does. It was an abdication of power they didn't know they could accept, since they didn't understand the equivalence of the currencies of "power" and "responsibility", and the natural exchange of the two. The clowns merely didn't care to think about it. --- The Metropolitan Circus